MOHAMMED Vs. ABDURAHIMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents 1 and 2 made an application against the petitioner under S.80B, Land Reforms Act for purchase of a kudikidappu. The petitioner contested the application on the ground that the building involved is not a hut, that the respondents were ineligible to be kudikidappukars as they owned land exceeding 10 cents on which they could erect a building and that they were in any event disentitled to the protection of S.75 as their kudikidappu originated subsequent to January 1, 1970. The Tribunal found the building to be a hut and overruling the petitioner's other objections granted the application in favour of the second respondent. The petitioner carried an appeal to the Appellate Authority contesting all the findings of the Tribunal except the nature of the building. The appeal was however unsuccessful as the Appellate Authority agreed with the findings of the Tribunal. Hence the revision.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner urged two points of which one had been raised unsuccessfully before the authorities below.

(3.) The contention that a kudikidappu which has sprung into existence subsequent to January 1, 1970 would not entitle its occupant to the protection of the Act has been considered on more than one occasion. It was first considered in Purushan v. Prakasan, 1977 KLT 10 , where it was held: